This was the question the poster asked. The case law on retro active awards was clear on how it is determined. By the time that decision happens both parties will have done the material change argument, provided their facts to prove their case and/or provided timelines and amounts.

What you are talking about here is imputed income. Which is a whole different ballgame with much higher burdens than material change circumstances, though material change is still the first step.

No thats not what Im talking about nor is it even the same. A motion for disclosure is to GET DISCLOSURE. Having income imputed does not relate to disclosure. They are two separate issues. Someone who is refusing to disclose doesnít necessarily need imputation. They need to disclose their income which is REQUIRED under the guidelines. FULL STOP. Someone who is hiding income, is self employed, refuses to work or is purposely under employed would be an ideal candidate to have imputed income sought by the opposing party.

Quote:

A motion for disclosure isn't a motion for imputed income - nor is it a motion for retroactive claims.

No its not and I never said it was. You brought imputed income into this.

Quote:

And they should. Because if they don't, then they will probably return to court 4 years later for a retroactive claim based on this historic material change. And will have to explain the delay.

If they received a retro award and the payor continued to refuse to provide ongoing disclosure it wouldnít require a material change. It would be refusing to follow an order for disclosure and would require a motion to compel disclosure. Note to anyone thinking of withholding disclosure: you piss off the judge.

This was the question the poster asked. The case law on retro active awards was clear on how it is determined. By the time that decision happens both parties will have done the material change argument, provided their facts to prove their case and/or provided timelines and amounts.

You're still saying the same thing. The question of material change must be answered. I'm not even clear what you are disagreeing with me on anymore. Seriously.

Having income imputed does not relate to disclosure. They are two separate issues.

You are wrong. Since you really like case laws, here is some more case law for ya.

Quote:

Imputing income

19. (1) The court may impute such amount of income to a parent or spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include,

(a) the parent or spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of any child or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the parent or spouse;

(b) the parent or spouse is exempt from paying federal or provincial income tax;

(c) the parent or spouse lives in a country that has effective rates of income tax that are significantly lower than those in Canada;

(d) it appears that income has been diverted which would affect the level of child support to be determined under these guidelines;

(e) the parentís or spouseís property is not reasonably utilized to generate income;

(f) the parent or spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so;

(g) the parent or spouse unreasonably deducts expenses from income;

(h) the parent or spouse derives a significant portion of income from dividends, capital gains or other sources that are taxed at a lower rate than employment or business income or that are exempt from tax; and

(i) the parent or spouse is a beneficiary under a trust and is or will be in receipt of income or other benefits from the trust. O. Reg. 391/97, s. 19 (1); O. Reg. 446/01, s. 6.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockscan

If they received a retro award and the payor continued to refuse to provide ongoing disclosure it wouldnít require a material change. It would be refusing to follow an order for disclosure and would require a motion to compel disclosure.

Of course it wouldn't require a material change. But before you go into more tangents, let's clarify that's for only once after the retro award has been made. However, we are not talking about after here. We are talking about before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockscan

I didnít say imputed income and youíve just proven my argument that you donít know what you are talking about.

Only thing proven here is the gaps in your understanding or rather misunderstanding of family law.

I think it's best we allow poster to answer the simple questions I asked before it get's decided if there are follow up questions and which laws apply to them.

Because with your approach, you are just putting the wagon before the horse and talking about motions for disclosure and motion to compel disclosure, etc.